Dispensationalists seek to interpret the Bible literally, that is, to consistently understand the Scriptures
in their plain, normal, natural, obvious sense, much like we would read and understand the newspaper,
a book, a poem, an essay or other types
of literature. Bernard Ramm says, "We use the word 'literal' in its
dictionary sense: '...the natural or usual construction and implication of
a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; not
allegorical or metaphorical' (Webster's New International Dictionary)"
[Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), 119.]

Mal Couch and Charles Ryrie express this concept well:

A normal reading of Scripture is
synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatico-historical hermeneutic.
When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every
word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in
its normal usage. Proponents of a consistent, literal reading of
Scripture prefer the phrase a normal reading of Scripture to establish
the difference between literalism and letterism.
[Mal Couch, General Editor, An Introduction to
Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 33.]

If God be the originator of language and if the
chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it
must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient
language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore,
it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand
it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot
be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the
interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be
sought. [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 81.]

The Clarifying Statement on Dispensationalism, published by the New England Bible Conference,
says it this way:

The Bible must be interpreted literally which is the way language is normally and
naturally understood. We recognize that the Bible writers frequently used figurative
language which is a normal and picturesque way of portraying literal truth. The Bible
must be understood in the light of the normal use of language, the usage of words, the
historical and cultural background, the context of the passage and the overall teaching
of the Bible (2 Tim. 2:15). Most importantly, the believer must study the Bible in full
dependence upon the SPIRIT OF TRUTH whose ministry is to reveal Christ and
illumine the minds and hearts of believers (John 5:39; 16:13-15; 1 Cor. 2:9-16). The
natural, unregenerate man cannot understand or interpret correctly the Word of God.
The things of God are foolishness to him, he cannot know them (1 Cor. 2:14), and his
mind is blinded (Rom. 3:11; 2 Cor. 4:3-4).

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The
Biblical Research Society, was proficient in the Biblical languages. He
studied Greek under Dr. A. T. Robertson. Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation”
which is
as follows:

When the plain sense of Scripture

makes common sense,

seek no other sense;

Therefore, take every word

at its
primary, ordinary,

usual,
literal meaning

Unless the facts

of the
immediate context,

studied
in the light

Of related passages and

axiomatic and fundamental truths

indicate clearly otherwise.

[This rule was published
regularly in Dr. Cooper's monthly magazine, Biblical Research Monthly.]

A shortened form of the above rule goes like this:

If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.

The opponents of dispensationalism sometimes depart from the above rule,
and although they might not want to admit it, they seem to follow this rule:

If the plain sense does not fit my theological system, then
I will seek some other sense,
lest I should end up agreeing with the dispensationalists!

This is illustrated by an amillennialist, named Hamilton,
who made this remarkable admission:

Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament
prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the
premillennialist pictures [Cited by Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial
Faith, (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1981), 35].

In other words, if a person really interprets the Bible prophecies literally, he will of necessity be a
premillennialist, according to Hamilton, who himself was not one!

The dispensationalist believes that God means what He says and says what He means. In childlike
faith he recognizes his need to simply take Him at His Word and rest upon His
clear, normal, obvious statements.

Some of the opponents of dispensationalism claim that they too interpret the Bible literally.
Here are seven simple tests to see if a person truly does:

Test #1—The Days of Genesis
One

Do I understand the six days of creation to be literal twenty-four hour
days?

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,
and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and
hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).

God says that His work of creation happened in six days. Does He really mean what He says? Does He mean “six days”
or does He mean something else? Can we take Him at His Word? How would a child understand
this verse?

Today many teach that these six days of creation cannot refer to literal 24 hour days, but instead must
represent long ages of time which would then correspond with the vast geologic ages theorized by
evolutionary scientists and scholars.

But does normal interpretation allow for such a non-literal approach? How would Moses and the
people of his day have understood Exodus 20:11 and Genesis chapter 1? The rules of language and
word usage demand that we understand these as literal 24 hour days.

Dr. John C. Whitcomb, a pioneer in the modern creationist movement, has mentioned the following
significant points among others:

1)When a numerical adjective is attached to the word “day” (and there are two hundred known
cases of this in the Old Testament) the meaning is always restricted to twenty-four hours (i.e., “first day,”
“second day,” etc.). See a precise parallel in Numbers 7:12-78.

2)When the plural form (“days”) appears in the Old Testament (over seven hundred times) it
always refers to literal days. See Joshua 6:14 (“six days”) where it is quite obvious that literal
days are in view.

3)A creation “week” of six indefinite periods of time would hardly serve as a valid or
meaningful pattern for Israel’s cycle of work and rest, as explained by God at Sinai in the
fourth commandment (Exodus 20:9-11). How inconsistent to say that God worked six long
ages (Exodus 20:11) to serve as a pattern for man to work six literal days (Exodus 20:9)!
I’m not sure most men in the work force would want each work day to be equivalent to a
long period of time, though this non-literal way of understanding “days” might appeal to them
when it comes to their vacation weeks! [John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth
(Baker Book House, Grand Rapids:, revised
edition, 1986), 28-30.]

For a more detailed analysis of how the “days” of Genesis 1 should be understood, see our paper,
The Six Days of Creation

Before the dawn of uniformitarian evolutionism,
there was general unanimity among students of the Bible that the days of
creation were six literal 24 hour days. The pressures of unsubstantiated
scientific theory should not force Bible believers to abandon the natural sense
of language.

Test #2—The Change in the Nature of Animals (Isaiah 11)

Do I understand Isaiah 11 to be describing a time when the nature of
animals will actually be changed (from ferocious to gentle, from meat
eating to plant eating, from poisonous to innocuous, etc.)?

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead
them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together:
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of
the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den” (Isaiah 11:6-8).

Does God really mean what He says in the above verses or does He mean something else? If we take
these verses literally, according to the normal way in which words are understood, then we are forced
to conclude that the kingdom has not yet arrived! If you go to any zoo, you will not find any lions
eating straw. Today no loving mother would allow her child to play with a deadly poisonous snake.

The story is told of a Russian zookeeper who made this boast, “In our zoo here in Moscow, the wolf
dwells with the lamb in the same cage, something which you Americans do not have.” But he
failed to mention that a new lamb had to be put in the cage every day!

An example of a non-literal approach is found in the New Geneva Study Bible (which some consider
to be the Scofield Bible of Reformed Theology). Since its initial publication it has
been renamed The Reformation Study Bible. According to the notes found in this Bible, verses
which speak of the kingdom being free from the threat of wild animals should be understood
“figuratively” to describe the "peace and security" and “reconciling love” that is found during this
present age from the first advent until Christ’s return.
[See notes under Isaiah 11:6-9 and Hosea 2:18. R.C.Sproul,
General Editor, New Geneva Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1995), 1043, 1363]

The inconsistency of this interpretation is seen
by comparing it with another passage which refers to the diet of animals.
The New Geneva Study Bible takes a very literal approach in its note under Genesis 1:29-30
(a passage which says that animals were originally vegetarian): “Animal diets were originally vegetarian.”
[Ibid., 8]Why do they understand Genesis chapter 1 literally
and Isaiah chapter 11 figuratively? Why does the plain sense make good sense in Genesis 1 but
not in Isaiah 11, especially when both passages are speaking of the diet of
animals? Could it be that Isaiah 11, understood literally, does not agree with their theological
system which says that the kingdom is here and now, whereas the teaching of
Genesis 1:29-30 does not threaten their theology? This illustrates the
point that
theologians are often inconsistent when it comes to their use of the literal
hermeneutic, and they often tend to abandon the natural and normal meaning of
words when the words describe kingdom conditions. Dispensationalists are known for their consistent use of the literal hermeneutic.

If anyone doubts that Isaiah 11:6-8 refers to a
future kingdom and does not apply to this present age, try this experiment.
Throw some straw into the lions' cage in the nearest zoo and
see if any of these carnivorous predators show any interest in it! Then
throw in a rib-eye steak and watch the action!

Do I understand Revelation 20 to be describing a literal period of a
thousand years during which time believers will reign with Christ?

Six times in Revelation chapter 20 reference is made to a period of a thousand years. Does God really
mean what He says or is the “thousand years” supposed to be taken figuratively
or symbolically to refer to something
else?

Dr. Gary North has been one of the leaders of the postmillennial reconstructionist movement
(the "theonomy" movement). [Since the mid
1970's theonomy has been most often used in Protestant circles to specifically
label the ethical perspective of Christian Reconstructionism, a perspective that
claims to be a faithful revival of the historic Protestant view of the Old
Testament law as espoused by many European Reformers and Puritans.] In
1987 Gary North sent out
a newsletter in which he scolded dispensationalists for their failure to teach creationism,
especially regarding the six literal days of the creation week.
[Gary North, Christian Reconstruction,
"Christianity and Progress" (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,
May/June, 1987, Vol. XI, No. 3), 3-4.] He attacked C.I.Scofield for holding to the gap theory,
a position commonly held among many of the earlier dispensationalists, but
rejected by many if not most dispensationalists today. North made the false accusation that no dispensational
seminary takes a position on a recent creation and that no dispensational seminary takes a position
that the days of Genesis 1 were literal 24 hour days. This accusation was
false, evidenced by the fact that Grace Theological Seminary
had published a written positional statement on this issue, entitled Biblical
Creationism, which was adopted by its faculty on July 6, 1979. Many other
dispensational schools also took a solid position on the six literal creation
days as revealed by a publication of the Independent Fundamental Churches of
America entitled, IFCA Schools Questionnaire Composite which was published in
1986. This questionnaire was sent to 263 Bible Institutes, Bible Colleges and
Seminaries. Ninety-four schools responded to the questionnaire and one hundred
and seventy schools did not respond. But of the schools who responded,
fifty-five
took a position in support of the days in Genesis 1 as literal 24 hour days; one
school did not teach this and 30 schools did not take an official position on
this issue.

Dr. North is to be commended for his literal approach to the first
chapter of Genesis and his insistence that the six days of the creation week
were literal 24 hour days. He takes Genesis 1 very literally and understands the
six days in their normal and natural and obvious sense. "Days" mean "days." "Morning
and evening" means "morning and evening." "Fifth day" means "fifth day." If Dr. North were to follow the same literal approach that he uses in Genesis 1 and apply that to
Revelation chapter 20, then he would be a premillennial dispensationalist and he would be forced to
abandon his postmillennialism. But instead he abandons his literal hermeneutic.
For him, the thousand years in Revelation 20 are very symbolic.
The term "thousand years" (mentioned six times in Revelation 20) does not really mean a thousand years,
according to North.

Dr. North has highly recommended David Chilton's
book, The Days of Vengeance--An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, as
the key work on prophecy and North himself wrote the preface. He states that no one has and no one can write a
better commentary on Revelation, so it is not unreasonable to assume that Gary
North would be in agreement with Chilton's position on Revelation 20. Here
is Chilton's non-literal understanding of the thousand years: The thousand
years represent "a vast, undefined period of time....It has already lasted
almost 2,000 years, and will probably go on for many more. The thousand years is
to be understood as a symbolical number, denoting a long period...It may require
a million years” [David Chilton, The Days of
Vengeance--An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth: Dominion
Press, 1987), 507. Dr. North's preface is found on pages xv-xxxiii].

Dr. North is totally opposed to the evolutionary
theory, and yet he handles Revelation 20 in a way very similar to how the
evolutionists handle Genesis 1. The evolutionists say:

Evolution is really impossible, but if you give
us enough time, all things are possible. We don't need God; we just need time.
Even though we cannot see evolution taking place today, if you give us enough
time then anything can happen. [This is beautifully
illustrated by a statement made by evolutionist Rick Gore, in an article
entitled, "The Awesome Worlds Within a Cell," which appeared in National
Geographic in September 1976. In discussing how the first living cell
originated, Gore said, "The odds against the right molecules being in the right
place at the right time are staggering. Yet, as science measures it, so is the
time scale on which nature works. Indeed, what seems an impossible
occurrence at any one moment would, given untold eons, become a certainty"
(390). Likewise, evolutionist George Wald wrote this: "Time is in fact the
hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two
billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is
meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the
possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait:
time itself performs the miracles. (Scientific American "The Origin of Life,"
August 1954, p.48) In other words, evolutionists teach that "With time, all things are
possible!"] Thus we cannot take the days of Genesis 1 literally
because we need much more time than six days. We need millions and millions of
years. Without that much time our evolutionary theory is in great trouble!

Reconstructionists echo the thinking of the evolutionists in their approach to Revelation chapter 20:

Reconstructing society according to Biblical law seems impossible, but if we have enough time it can
be done. We certainly don't see it taking place today. In fact, it seems as though society is becoming
more and more lawless. But with enough time these changes for the better will come.
We don't need Christ’s personal coming to this earth to change society. We can do it but we
need time. If you give us enough time anything can happen. Thus we cannot take the thousand years
of Revelation 20 literally because we need much more time than that. We need thousands and
thousands of years, perhaps EVEN A MILLION YEARS for us to overcome and have dominion over
the earth. But be patient. It will happen! But without that much time our reconstruction/postmillennial
theory is in great trouble!

We can be thankful for a great Creator God who was able to make the heavens and the earth in six literal
days! And we can be thankful for a great coming King, the Lord Jesus Christ, who can suddenly and mightily
transform society by
bringing in His promised kingdom (Daniel 2:44). He is not dependent upon man’s feeble efforts at improving society.
All man can do is make society more and more corrupt, even as it was in the days of Noah!

Gary North understands the days in Genesis 1
literally, in their normal sense. He understands the years in Revelation
20 in a non-literal way, in a symbolic way. It fits his theology to make
the days of Genesis 1 be literal days; it contradicts his theology to understand the millennium of Revelation 20
as a literal
millennium of 1000 years. Should not the text of the Bible determine our theology
instead of letting our theology govern how we understand the text?

Do I understand the Book of Daniel and the
Book of Revelation to be
describing a period of three and a half literal years?

In God’s prophetic masterpieces of Daniel and Revelation, there is a period of time that is said to be
three and a half years. It is described in four different ways:

1) Twelve
hundred and sixty (1260) days (Revelation 12:6,14). This would be equivalent to 3½ years and also equivalent
to 42 months (each month having 30 days).

2) Forty-two
(42) months (Revelation 11:2; 13:5).

3)“A time, times, and half a time”
(Daniel 12:7; Rev. 12:14)--if a “time” equals a year and if “times” equals two years, then
“a time, times and half a time” would equal 3½ years.

4)Half of a week with the week consisting of seven years, hence a 3½ year period (Daniel 9:27).

God means what He says and says what He means! He has told us about a period of time which is
equal to three and a half years, and He describes this period of time in four different ways to make sure we
understand! When God says 1,260 days does He really mean 1,260 days? When God says 42
months, does he really mean 42 months? When God says 3½ years [time (1) + times (2) + half a time
(½) = 3½], does He really mean 3½ years? When God speaks of half of a seven year period (Daniel
9:27), does He really mean half of a seven year period?

Do I understand that there will be animal sacrifices in the future,
during the kingdom age?

Do I believe in a future millennial temple
exactly as described in the closing chapters of Ezekiel?

Those who do not believe in a literal, earthly, millennial kingdom have a major problem believing that
there will be animal sacrifices reinstituted under a Zadokian priesthood during the coming kingdom
age. They cannot understand how this can be reconciled with the once-for-all, forever sacrifice of
our perfect Substitute, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet we cannot ignore very clear passages which speak about future animal sacrifices in the context
of a future millennial temple. See Ezekiel 40-48 (especially 43:19-27); Isaiah 56:6-7; Isaiah 60:7;
Zechariah 14:16-21. To spiritualize these prophecies is to empty them of their literal content.
To
pretend that they somehow apply to the church of this present age is an insult to the God who expects
us to take Him at His Word. Actually many non-dispensationalists simply
ignore these prophecies which is easier than trying to explain them away.

The same non-literal approach is often taken with respect to the millennial temple with its detailed
description given to us in Ezekiel chapters 40-48. And yet these same men would tell us that the
detailed description of the tabernacle and its furniture as found in the book of Exodus
or the detailed description of Solomon's temple in 1 Kings 6 should be taken
very literally. Why do we understand the detailed descriptions of the tabernacle
and temple to be descriptive of literal structures, but when it comes to a future temple,
also described in great detail, we abandon a literal understanding of the Word of God? Could it be that our
hermeneutics is governed by our theology? If a person does not believe in a future, earthly kingdom
centered in Jerusalem, then it is easy to understand why he would not believe that there would be a
temple there either, much less animal sacrifices!

Do I believe in a millennial river beginning at
the Jerusalem temple and flowing into both the Dead Sea (which will then be a
living sea) and the Mediterranean Sea?

Another test for literal interpretation is the
river which is described in Ezekiel 47 and in other places in the Old Testament.
This amazing river will originate from the house of the LORD (compare Joel 3:18)
as a very shallow stream. Gradually the stream will get deeper and fuller until
it is over a man's head. It eventually travels east until it empties into
the Dead Sea which will then be a terrible misnomer because the waters of the
Dead Sea will be turned into fresh water teeming with fish (see Ezekiel
47:1-10). The Dead Sea will be miraculously transformed into a living sea!

In Zechariah 14:8 we learn that half of this
river will empty into the Dead Sea and half of the river will empty into the
Mediterranean Sea. This river is also mentioned in Psalm 46:4 (and
notice the context in Psalm 46:9-10 which clearly speaks of the kingdom).

Manfred Kober has provided the following
illustration of the future topography of the Holy Land showing this amazing
river of life flowing into the two great seas:

The descriptions of this river are as literal as
literal can be. There are clear geographical references made in connection
with this river (Ezek. 47:8-10). There are exact distances and depths
measured out (Ezek. 47:3-5). The details concerning this river are very
descriptive and specific. It flows into the sea (the Dead Sea) and the waters, which once
were the saltiest on earth, become fresh. There will be many varieties
of fish in this same body of water where fish formerly could never live. Fishermen
will stand beside it and there will be the spreading of nets. Are we to
reject this whole description and spiritualize it and give it some strange
meaning according to our own fancy, or should we take it at face value and give
the words their literal and normal and obvious sense?

When people depart from a literal interpretation
they deny the plain sense and they give the text some other sense according to
their own lively imagination. It is almost humorous to read the commentaries and
see how people spiritualize this river and make it mean whatever they want it to
mean.

The early church fathers saw the river as a
symbol of baptism. Some see it as the stream of church history. Many speak
of the river as emblematic of spiritual life, with some saints only ankle-deep
or knee-deep Christians. Others identify the river with the stream of the
Gospel, denying any literal future aspect of the prophecy. Derek Kidner,
in relating the river with the river of paradise in Genesis 2, speaks of it
simply as "vitality that flows from holy ground," whatever that might mean.
[Manfred E. Kober, "The Return of the Lord and the River
of Life," in Basic Theology: Applied, editors Wesley & Elaine Willis,
John & Janet Master (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995), 289.]

The river is directly connected to the house of
the LORD (Ezek. 47:1-2; Joel 3:18), so if a person rejects the literalness of
this river he must also reject the literalness of the temple which is
described in Ezekiel chapters 40-48. Actually the three (the temple, the
river and the animal sacrifices) must stand or fall together. For more
information on this river see The Millennium
River (Ezekiel 47).

Alva McClain, whose work on the kingdom is
classic, has written the following about the millennial river issuing from the
temple:

In addition to these natural results which must
follow properly controlled rainfall, there may also be streams continually
flowing by miraculous causation, such as the marvelous stream pictured by
Ezekiel (47:1-12). Its issue from the temple, its immense size, the
beneficial qualities of its fruit, its perennial flow "in summer and in winter"
(Zech. 14:8)--all emphasize the supernatural nature of the stream. There
is nothing at all inherently impossible in such a phenomenon. Why should
anyone stumble at the idea of a beautiful stream springing up at the
geographical center of our Lord's blessed Kingdom on earth, with healing in both
its waters and the fruit which grows beside it? Is there anything
incredible here, if we remember that the coming King is the One who once turned
water into wine and sent the sightless man to wash away his blindness in the
waters of Siloam (John 9:11)? What a visible symbol this will be to remind
the nations of the unfailing blessings which will flow from the throne of the
Son of David! And from this shrine none will go away in
heartbreaking disappointment because no help has been found.
[Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of
the Kingdom--An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (Winona Lake: BMH
Books, 1974) 237.]

I wrote to Gary DeMar, well known preterist author and a leading critic of dispensationalism.
[His attack on dispensationalism is called Last Days
Madness--Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta: American Vision, 1999).] The question I
asked him was simply this:

Ezekiel 47 and other passages teach that there will be a river
flowing from the temple, emptying into the Dead Sea, with the result that the
waters of the Dead Sea will be healed so that fish will live there and
fishermen will fish there (verses 1-10). When was this fulfilled?

His answer was lengthy, but the essence of it was that this passage in
Ezekiel 47 has already been fulfilled by Jesus Christ who is our River of Life.
[This is the typical answer of a preterist: "It is
fulfilled, not future!"] Now we
would certainly agree that Jesus Christ is our River of Life, and we would still
be dead in sins apart from Him who is our Life, but does this mean that the clear statements about
the river in Ezekiel 47 (and how the waters of the Dead Sea will be healed) will
never find literal fulfillment? The key question really is this:
Is God going to do what He said He would do in Ezekiel 47, or not? To
simply say that all of the details and specific statements of this prophecy were
fulfilled by Jesus Christ does not do justice to the clear statements of
Scripture. It does not honor Christ to deny the plain and obvious and
natural sense of His Word. The waters of the Dead Sea were never healed at
Christ's first coming and during the last 2000 years no fishermen have been
spreading their nets there. Ezekiel's prophecy has never been fulfilled,
but those who take God at His Word know that it will be.

Test #7—The Extent of the Atonement

Do I understand that Christ died for all men and that He tasted death
for every man without exception?

The language of the Bible cannot be more clear:

He died for . . .

the world (John 3:16; 6:33,51)

the whole world (1 John 2:2)

all (1 Timothy 2:6)

us all (Isaiah 53:6)

all men (Romans 5:18)

every man (Hebrews 2:9)

Christ-deniers (2 Peter 2:1).

Does God really mean what He says? Can we take Him at His Word? Or, are we going to let our
theology force us to change the meaning of words that by themselves are very clear?

Sir Robert Anderson, in the preface of his book Forgotten Truths, has written the following:

In the early years of my Christian life I was greatly perplexed and distressed by the
supposition that the plain and simple words of such Scriptures as John 3:16; 1 John
2:2; 1 Timothy 2:6 were not true, save in a cryptic sense understood only by the
initiated. For, I was told, the over-shadowing truth of Divine sovereignty in election
barred our taking them literally. But half a century ago a friend of those days—the
late Dr. Horatius Bonar—delivered me from this strangely prevalent error. He taught
me that truths may seem to us irreconcilable only because our finite minds cannot
understand the Infinite; and we must never allow our faulty apprehension of the
eternal counsels of God to hinder unquestioning faith in the words of Holy Scripture.
[Sir Robert Anderson, Forgotten Truths (Grand
Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1980), preface, xi-xii.]

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) was a godly saint who is highly esteemed among Reformed
men. He wrote the following about this very matter:

When God telleth us as plain as can be spoken, that Christ died for and tasted death
for every man, men will deny it, and to that end subvert the plain sense of the words,
merely because they cannot see how this can stand with Christ’s damning men, and
with his special Love to his chosen. It is not hard to see the fair and harmonious
consistency: But what if you cannot see how two plain Truths of the Gospel should
agree? Will you therefore deny one of them when both are plain? Is not that in high
pride to prefer your own understandings before the wisdom of the Spirit of God, who
indicted the Scriptures? Should not a humble man rather say, doubtless both are true
though I cannot reconcile them. So others will deny these plain truths, because they
think that all that Christ died for are certainly Justified and Saved: For whomsoever
he died and satisfied Justice for, them he procured Faith to Believe in him: God
cannot justly punish those whom Christ hath satisfied for, etc. But doth the Scripture
speak all these or any of these opinions of theirs, as plainly as it saith that Christ died
for all and every man? Doth it say, as plainly any where that he died not for all? Doth
it any where except any one man, and say Christ died not for him? Doth it say any
where that he died only for his Sheep, or his Elect, and exclude the Non-Elect? There
is no such word in all the Bible; Should not then the certain truths and the plain texts
be the Standard to the uncertain points, and obscure texts?
[Richard Baxter,
Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (London:
Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694) 282-283, the
archaic spelling of the original has been conformed to current English usage for
the purpose of ease of understanding.]

Richard Baxter then skillfully applied these principles to the case at hand:

Now I
would know of any man, would you believe that Christ died for all men if the
Scripture plainly speak it? If you would, do but tell me, what words can you
devise or would you wish more plain for it than are there used? Is it not enough
that Christ is called the Saviour of the World? You’ll say, but is it of the
whole World? Yes, it saith, He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole
World. Will you say, but it is not for All men in the World? Yes it saith he
died for All men, as well as for all the World. But will you say, it saith not
for every man? Yes it doth say, he tasted death for every man. But you may say,
It means all the Elect, if it said so of any Non-Elect I would believe. Yes, it
speaks of those that denied the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves
swift destruction. And yet all this seems nothing to men prejudiced.
[Ibid., 286-287. The verses that are alluded to in this
quote are John 4:42; 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 2:1).]

I knew of a man who was not committed to the belief that Christ died for all men and yet he
made this remarkable concession: “If Christ really did die for all men, then I don’t know how the
Bible could say it any clearer than it does.” How true! This same man later embraced the doctrine
of unlimited atonement because he could not deny the literal force of the clear and plain statements
of Scripture.

Did you approach all seven examples from a consistent literal viewpoint, seeking to understand the
language of the Bible in a natural and normal way, understanding the language in
its obvious sense? May God help us to come to His Word in simple
childlike faith and humbly take Him at His Word, letting the Bible say what it says, and not forcing
it to say what we want it to say or think it should say! "Speak Lord, for
Thy servant heareth" (1 Sam. 3:9).

"About the time of the
end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the
prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of
much clamor and opposition" -- Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727)